Nearly half of U.S. corporations issuing Macs to employees

With about 46 percent of corporations handing out Apple computers to their workers it would seem that OS X is slowly currying favor with chief information officers, though the final count depends on the workers themselves and many are not yet ready to make the leap to Mac.

Apple is seeing a bump in the number of businesses issuing Macs to their employees due in part to more appealing pricing, but the actual number of workers per company who are issued the computers is still a small slice of the overall enterprise pie, reports CIO Journal.

Apple's business sales grew 50.9 percent at the end of 2011 which accounted for a 34.9% year-to-year growth in total Mac shipments.

According to CBS Interactive CTO Peter Yared, the cost of rolling out an enterprise Mac solution is becoming a more viable option. About 100-150 Macs are being brought in to select CBS brands each quarter to replace older Windows PCs for roughly 2,500 employees.

"It used to be cost-prohibitive to run Macs in the enterprise, and that equation changed recently with the MacBook Air,” Yared said.

While the Air's price-of-entry is higher than offerings from competing Windows units, Yared said that the end cost is comparable as he would have needed to buy peripherals like docking stations and solid state drives for each employee.

Another factor is the contrast in desktop environment. Yared's decision to begin implementing Macs in the workplace was partly fueled by expectations of his charges in San Francisco who were accustomed to using Apple devices.

“People aren’t going to step into a time machine when they go to work, it makes them very frustrated and it makes it hard to attract and retain top talent,” Yared said.

According to research firm Forrester, a significant portion of Mac adoption relies on Apple's other products.

“The use of iPads and iPhones in the workplace is creating increased awareness and consideration of Macs,” said Forrester Vice President and Principal Analyst Frank Gillett.

The halo effect might be in force at some smaller startup companies, though cost structure is making the Mac more attractive for large multi-nationals like Cisco.

Cisco CIO Rebecca Jacoby said that about 16,000 employees, or one quarter of the company's 63,870 total workers, use Macs with the concentration of users hovering between 20-30 percent depending on country.

“It does cost a lot more than a standard-issue PC, so in order to absorb that cost, we made tradeoffs in the way we actually do the service structure for it,” Jacoby said. “IT backs it but it’s also the [Cisco employee] community that supports it, which ends up being a much more cost-effective support mechanism for us and we can make it cost neutral."

Despite the wider adoption, many corporations are finding that many employees are resistant to switch over to Mac after years of using enterprise solutions from Windows.

Forrester found that while 46 percent of corporations now issue Macs, only 7 percent of computers given to employees run Apple's OS.

Yared gave the example of accountants being hesitant in switching to Mac because they use programs like Microsoft Excel, which is presented slightly differently on OS X than Windows. The ability of running two operating systems is a non-factor as tech chiefs don't want to spend the money to purchase two licenses for one computer.

While Windows currently dominates the enterprise space, the evidence is pointing to marked Apple gains in the sector. Employees and managers are looking for ways to streamline the workplace, and the usability of the Mac ecosystem seems to be attracting more corporations. A testament to the platform's ease of use is what Yared called the biggest surprise in integrating Macs: people didn't need any training to get up and running.

It's true that many users won't want to use a Mac for some of the stated reasons. But for more advanced users who can support themselves, it's great to finally have the option to use a Mac (at least in some places).

Where I work, I had to fight very hard just to have the right to buy my own Mac for use at work, with virtually zero support. Nice to see that there are companies out there that are more enlightened than my employer.

If Apple could get Intuit to give Mac OS X a REAL version of Quickbooks that is EQUAL to the XP version, then mac adoption in business would increase easier just on that ALONE. I run Macs for all my business stuff but have to use Windows XP on a laptop with Parallels software running to have my fully functioning Quickbooks working. Since the Mac version doesn't completely support payroll in the app like the PC versions do, I'm left with having to use a PC version that would just be great if it was truly Mac native.

In view of this (and really, this trend has been predictable for a while), it's fascinating that Intel is investing in Windows-bsaed Ultrabooks. Why not invest the $300M in R&D to improve their chips more to help Apple sell more? Why not catch a new wave rather than trying to pull a receding one back into relevance?

Intel is not a stupid company. So their strategy is intriguing. Is it because they don't like Apple's control? Or they simply want to expand this market? Or is Microsoft staking them in this $300M investment?

No they weren't. Historically the Mac had a much lower TCO than a PC, the only problem was that the upfront cost of a Mac was that much more.

Still remember in the mid 90s meeting the IT Dept head for Dennis Publishing. She ran 300-400 desks (all Macs) with 2 other guys. Her counterparts at Haymarket (iirc) had 500 seats, all PC and had a support department of 30. Same with E&Y in London. They binned Macs in the mid 90s, and a support dept of 6 went to 50.

No they weren't. Historically the Mac had a much lower TCO than a PC, the only problem was that the upfront cost of a Mac was that much more.

Still remember in the mid 90s meeting the IT Dept head for Dennis Publishing. She ran 300-400 desks (all Macs) with 2 other guys. Her counterparts at Haymarket (iirc) had 500 seats, all PC and had a support department of 30. Same with E&Y in London. They binned Macs in the mid 90s, and a support dept of 6 went to 50.

But of course, PCs are cheaper......

In the 90s:

All PCs - easy to manage.
All Macs - relatively easy to manage
Mixing in a few Macs in a PC environment? Mucho extra work.

Hence, justified. There simply is no reasonable rebuttal to this. End of story

All PCs - easy to manage.
All Macs - relatively easy to manage
Mixing in a few Macs in a PC environment? Mucho extra work.

Hence, justified. There simply is no reasonable rebuttal to this. End of story

Today's world is, of course, different.

In the 90s both Windows and Macs were junk. I dealt with both working within Heterogenous environments from Win3.11/System7+ to HP-UX/DecStations and much more.

Windows for Workgroups to WinNT 3.5.1 were a pain in the rear. Macs were easy to set up for all Mac networks but their file sharing for Windows was crap due to Microsoft. Then the UNIX support was nearly as bad.

OS X changes it all because its UNIX. Apple's entire ecosystem today is UNIX.

Microsoft is the one catching up and losing in the big markets will be the nail on the coffin.

When the big ports of Engineering Apps arrive and matched with their iOS brethren Microsoft will realize it's truly losing it.

When ANSYS, all of Autodesk suites, Pro/E [Now Creo from PLM Software], CATIA, etc., have Cocoa versions Engineering schools around all major Universities will be thrilled.

Not by any standard. There were plenty of studies showing the total cost of ownership being lower for Macs. And I was able to do everything that any of the PCs in the shop could do. In fact, our IT group often spent days getting the PCs onto the network and I had no problem in minutes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stelligent

In the 90s:

All PCs - easy to manage.
All Macs - relatively easy to manage
Mixing in a few Macs in a PC environment? Mucho extra work.

Hence, justified. There simply is no reasonable rebuttal to this. End of story

Today's world is, of course, different.

The 'reasonable rebuttal' is that you're full of baloney. PCs were not easy to manage in the 90's. It was not uncommon to have one IT person for every 20-50 users. (We had 2 IT persons and only 40 users and the PCs were often out of operation a good bit of the time). It was well established that PCs were a nightmare in the 90's.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

If it's market share at the expense of profits, it's not remotely worth it.

With business buyers, it inevitably becomes that way: they start trying to squeeze you like they will any supplier, for every extra buck and every extra cent of EPS. It becomes a creeping commitment to a bear hug that you can't easily escape from -- once you become beholden to the volume of sales from this segment, there's no turning back. Apple could get stuck.

Not by any standard. There were plenty of studies showing the total cost of ownership being lower for Macs. And I was able to do everything that any of the PCs in the shop could do. In fact, our IT group often spent days getting the PCs onto the network and I had no problem in minutes.

The 'reasonable rebuttal' is that you're full of baloney. PCs were not easy to manage in the 90's. It was not uncommon to have one IT person for every 20-50 users. (We had 2 IT persons and only 40 users and the PCs were often out of operation a good bit of the time). It was well established that PCs were a nightmare in the 90's.

If it's market share at the expense of profits, it's not remotely worth it.

Apple. Give up profits.

I love this forum. Such great humor.

Quote:

With business buyers, it inevitably becomes that way: they start trying to squeeze you like they will any supplier, for every extra buck and every extra cent of EPS.

I think of it more as "Apple's going to revolutionize yet another industry." In this case, by forcing businesses to realize that quality products that cost more at first (but less over the life of the device) and last longer is the right way to go.

If Apple could get Intuit to give Mac OS X a REAL version of Quickbooks that is EQUAL to the XP version, then mac adoption in business would increase easier just on that ALONE. I run Macs for all my business stuff but have to use Windows XP on a laptop with Parallels software running to have my fully functioning Quickbooks working. Since the Mac version doesn't completely support payroll in the app like the PC versions do, I'm left with having to use a PC version that would just be great if it was truly Mac native.

I agree. I wish someone would just takeover Quickbooks and develop the Mac version properly. If Apple was able to takeover Filemaker Pro maybe it should also look at Quickbooks. These are important moves to make--clear the obstacles that are preventing the use of an otherwise superior OS platform. The pragmatic issues are very real indeed. They may appear to be minor issues and come in various forms, but they are holding people back from adopting the Mac at the enterprise level.

Most CIOs aren't likely to read this forum, but they still have a bit of learning to do. I'm an IT admin where I work, and I know about the costs of supporting multiple platforms. If some CIOs are claiming it still costs more to put Macs in their enterprise, then they're doing it wrong.

I run a small dept. with about 80 desktops/laptops and a dozen or so servers. About 6 of those machines are Macs. The initial cost of most of them was less than the PCs (they're Mac minis). The long term support costs of the Macs is near zero. Once configured, they have operated without incident and without failure for nearly four years now. All that's been done to them are software updates - really easy with the built-in software updater.

The PCs on the other hand are the typical nightmare. Windows crashing, equipment failures, anti-virus and other protections constantly needing to be maintained and repaired, etc. etc. I waste countless hours keeping the PCs running when I could be using that time on better projects like increasing our capabilities or implementing new back end systems. And don't even get me started on the costs of licensing M$ software and all the needed security software packages.

But enough about Windows. We have made a huge stride in reducing our PC costs by moving about 1/3 of the systems over to Linux. The software costs for those systems have dropped to near zero, and the support costs are much better than Windows, but still not as good as the Macs. The last thing that I should mention about the Macs that keeps their cost effectiveness much better than the PCs is that the PCs are on a 3-year upgrade cycle, but we have found the Macs have a longer useful lifespan - we'll be updating them on a 5-year cycle (our 1st upgrade will be next year on a machine that's actually 6 years old already - we bought it used).

In view of this (and really, this trend has been predictable for a while), it's fascinating that Intel is investing in Windows-bsaed Ultrabooks. Why not invest the $300M in R&D to improve their chips more to help Apple sell more? Why not catch a new wave rather than trying to pull a receding one back into relevance?

Intel is not a stupid company. So their strategy is intriguing. Is it because they don't like Apple's control? Or they simply want to expand this market? Or is Microsoft staking them in this $300M investment?

It's completely because Apple refuses to put "Intel Inside" on the end of it's commercials. That's the story on the inside of the water coolers so it has to be the truth. Without that tag line, Intel is losing massive monies because no one knows what is inside the box other than core i# processors.

Much of the software I use depends upon reliable RS232, USB or Ethernet communications and sadly you can't alway rely on VMs to handle that right. There is almost zero Mac support in the world of industrial controls.

This is a misleading article. The study referenced states that nearly half of corporations have issued at least one Mac to an employee. My company has 300,000 employees and I know there are a few Macs, but the total number of Macs at my company is statistically insignificant. A tiny fraction of a percent. But this counts as a corporation issuing Macs.

The referenced article also mentions how OS X is not deployed on most of these Macs. Why have a Mac if you can't have the best part of the Mac, which is the OS?

We can all get giddy that the day is coming when Macs will truly rule the office and I really hope that day comes, but be real people. It ain't gonna happen soon. We just spent a few million on an ERP system that must run on an IE browser. Other companies are doing this too. They're not going to throw that investment away.

Much of the software I use depends upon reliable RS232, USB or Ethernet communications and sadly you can't alway rely on VMs to handle that right. There is almost zero Mac support in the world of industrial controls.

There are always going to be niches that are problems. That doesn't change the point of the story - that Macs are growing in corporate use.

Pro and Science contains profiles of various companies using Mac computers. But what does Business contain? Apple marketing and links to "iPad in Business" and "iPhone in Business".

Academic science researchers are very big Mac users.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saldog

This is a misleading article. The study referenced states that nearly half of corporations have issued at least one Mac to an employee. My company has 300,000 employees and I know there are a few Macs, but the total number of Macs at my company is statistically insignificant. A tiny fraction of a percent. But this counts as a corporation issuing Macs.

The referenced article also mentions how OS X is not deployed on most of these Macs. Why have a Mac if you can't have the best part of the Mac, which is the OS?

We can all get giddy that the day is coming when Macs will truly rule the office and I really hope that day comes, but be real people. It ain't gonna happen soon. We just spent a few million on an ERP system that must run on an IE browser. Other companies are doing this too. They're not going to throw that investment away.

We spend $1M/yr+ on CAD SW. Only pieces of it run on Mac.

Still years away folks. Not months. Years.

It's still nice to dream though.

There's nothing at all that's misleading in the article - and they even gave some specific examples:
"Cisco CIO Rebecca Jacoby said that about 16,000 employees, or one quarter of the company's 63,870 total workers, use Macs with the concentration of users hovering between 20-30 percent depending on country."

Furthermore, they stated that while 46% of corporations use Macs, only 7% of the computers given to employees are Macs, so your point is well covered. The important fact is that a decade ago, that percentage was probably 1-2% of computers given to employees were Macs (almost entirely in graphics), so it's a big gain.

However, I can't find anything in the article that suggests that Macs are not running OS X as you suggest. In fact, the article specifically suggests that many IT groups do not want to buy a separate Windows license.

As for CAD, it is true that the Mac has a long way to go, but with the (re)release of AutoCAD for the Mac, they've made a big start. I know that this is only one of AutoDesk's products, but it's still a big start.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

It's completely because Apple refuses to put "Intel Inside" on the end of it's commercials. That's the story on the inside of the water coolers so it has to be the truth. Without that tag line, Intel is losing massive monies because no one knows what is inside the box other than core i# processors.

;-)

What is the data indicating that Intel is losing massive sums because there is no Intel Inside sticker on Macs?

Let's imagine there are such stickers. Would more Macs sell and therefore enrich Intel? Would customers, after having purchased a Mac with such a sticker, forsake the option of ever buying anything with AMD inside?

Only in *casual* computing. 15 yrs ago, you could argue academic helped keep Apple alive. Now, we represent a rather small percentage. Nevertheless, at conferences, Macs continue to be a dominant presence.

What is the data indicating that Intel is losing massive sums because there is no Intel Inside sticker on Macs?

Let's imagine there are such stickers. Would more Macs sell and therefore enrich Intel? Would customers, after having purchased a Mac with such a sticker, forsake the option of ever buying anything with AMD inside?

There's a non-standard wink at the end of his post. I think he's joking.

It continues to amaze me that Apple is content to sit back and not try to make serious inroads (or at least a concerted effort) to get businesses using Macs. For consumers, it doesn't really matter, most can probably get by with an iPhone and iPad, but professionals are a different animal. With that said, I can't fathom why they don't encourage the "whole ecosystem" idea with people.

Pro and Science contains profiles of various companies using Mac computers. But what does Business contain? Apple marketing and links to "iPad in Business" and "iPhone in Business".

Especially when you look at Science and the professional R&D market, it's not like they have much of a choice. Chances are, they have certain requirements that only a Mac (or Linux box) can serve. I'm thinking mostly about use of open-source and providing developer tools at a low cost.

No they weren't. Historically the Mac had a much lower TCO than a PC, the only problem was that the upfront cost of a Mac was that much more.

Still remember in the mid 90s meeting the IT Dept head for Dennis Publishing. She ran 300-400 desks (all Macs) with 2 other guys. Her counterparts at Haymarket (iirc) had 500 seats, all PC and had a support department of 30. Same with E&Y in London. They binned Macs in the mid 90s, and a support dept of 6 went to 50.

But of course, PCs are cheaper......

You are totally right. The problem Macs faced in larger companies was that the IT manager couldn't build as large a kingdom supporting Macs, therefore a loss of relevance in the whole scheme of things.

School systems, on the other hand, needed a lot of computers scattered over many sites. They were so easy to use that teachers often did whatever was needed on their own. No kingdom required.

"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge

It continues to amaze me that Apple is content to sit back and not try to make serious inroads (or at least a concerted effort) to get businesses using Macs. For consumers, it doesn't really matter, most can probably get by with an iPhone and iPad, but professionals are a different animal. With that said, I can't fathom why they don't encourage the "whole ecosystem" idea with people.

You need to look at it from Apple's point of view. Apple is promoting what is selling and where they have strong market presence; iPhones and iPads. They get far more band for their buck.

the iPod market has passed its peak, and even though Apple has a very strong presence there, there's no future in that market other then to continue to service it. The desktop computer market is weak and not keeping up with the laptop business, so Apple puts their effort where it will create the biggest effect; the laptop market. They sell a lot of Mac Laptops that will only run Windows OS, but the more boxes you get out there the easier it will be some day to see a "flash over" effect to OSX. Who knows when or even if, but it will be easier to have happen with millions of Mac laptops in place in the enterprise market.

The iPhone and iPad are flowing into the enterprise market in unbelievable numbers and have a common OS and UI. Apple is moving their OSX to have a more UI similarity to the iOS UI. It may be extremely easy to see the "flash over" effect take place when users see both iOS and OSX as familiar.

MS is positioning itself to have that common UI with Windows8. If they are too late to the party and their phones and tablets don't catch on, then Apple is poised to grab the mobile PC market and a big chunk of the desktop market as well, and take it away from Windows boxes.

"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge

I would actually expect the Mac to decline in the corporate environment with the OS X Lion SMB compatibility issues with Windows Servers. Larger corporations might be able to afford workarounds such as Thursby's DAVE software but for SME's, with existing Windows infrastructure, it's a compatibility issue too far.